Genesis: Fact or Fiction?
by slaveofone

Let me begin by saying that I will not be advancing an argument either in favor of or against the historicity of Genesis. I have quite a deal more study to do before I will feel capable of making an educated decision. And, unfortunately, it seems the question has not been progressed adequately either by the believing Christian intelligentsia or the scholarly community. From this student’s perspective, scholars have only begun to ask the question seriously and have been either too flippant with it or too quick to embrace age-old theories that should’ve been buried long ago (like, for instance, the Document Hypothesis). The purpose of this paper is to outline a few discoveries I’ve made that may hopefully advance not only my own search for answers, but yours as well. The question is an open-ended one, but hopefully we will move a little closer to an answer. So why the big deal? Why write up an essay at all? The answer lies within the stage of truth that informs my Christian faith.

In the early to mid ’90s, Liberalism made a dramatic entrance into Christianity in the U.S. A great deal of this Liberalism was concerned only with throwing down key beliefs that Christianity up to that point had stood for. In reaction to it, Fundamentalism arose as a sort of equal but opposite extreme. If Liberalism would say one thing, Fundamentalism would say the other. It became second nature to reject off-hand anything associated with Liberalism. But there were goods as well as ills in both camps. One of the goods that Liberalism brought to the table was an insistence on the primacy of human reason. Instead of placing scripture up front on its stage of truth as Sola Scriptura would have it, Liberalism placed human reason in the form of historical-critical investigation. The Reformers had said scripture was the norm that cannot be normed-that it judged all things but itself could not be judged. And so Christians faithful to their theological heritage when faced with this deconstructionism embraced instead a faith separated from reason. The result was a circular argument couched in existentialism. Sure Christians had good reasons for their faith, but unless your eyes were opened and you experienced Yahweh, you could not understand them. Hopefully Yahweh would enlighten you because human reason could not.

But just because Liberals who put human reason at the front of their stage of truth were denying the propositions of Christianity does not mean human reason only leads to rejection of faith. Did not the Creator of heaven, earth, and human beings also create reason? And if Yahweh is the author of reason, then it stands to reason that reason itself should reflect him. Yahweh cannot deny himself. If Yahweh Is Who He Is, then for him to create something which shows him to be other than who he is wouldn’t be possible. I realized that this must be the case several years before I ever became a believer in the Christian god (or any god for that matter), which enabled me to boldly step forward with my reason to begin seeking answers. So I began with reason at the front of my stage. And unlike most, I became a believer and a follower of Yeshua and Yahweh because of it.

To this day, most Christians shun the possibility of letting Sola Scriptura go and putting historical-critical investigation in its place because to do so would mean subjecting the scriptures to the changing tides of human perception. Should we deny that Yeshua was the Christ because our current scholarship thinks so? What if more evidence surfaces fifty years from now and the tide shifts? Christians are looking for stability to their faith that rises above and beyond man’s flawed, sometimes incoherent, and usually kinetic understanding. It wasn’t long ago that the world was flat. Who knows what it will be tomorrow? And this is a valid concern. A big issue for me when I began seeking to understand Christianity, was what evidence exists in regards to the actual texts in our bibles? It wasn’t that long ago that our earliest manuscripts were a century or two older than their supposed date of composition. Thanks to the incredible discoveries of the last hundred years, we’ve pushed the date back a century or so with some texts. I admit that if wasn’t for those discoveries, I would not have felt there was enough evidence for the manuscripts to believe what they said. So what is the stability that we can rest our hope on then? It is that if the Spirit of God worked in scripture to reveal truth to men, and God Is Who He Is, the scripture should be more reliable.

Unfortunately, this misses the inherent problem. Nobody approaches scripture scripture first. They approach scripture reason first. And one of the first questions reason asks is how do we know the scriptures are scripture? Before we can believe in the scripture, the scripture demands our reason to judge it true or false. A leap of faith might prove true-and there is certainly a lot more to lose for the unbeliever if the Christian is right and Hell exists-but it is nevertheless a statement made in the dark about the light.

Fortunately for those of us who are not content to simply believe for the sake of belief, the god of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures not only knows that we need rational evidence for our decisions, but he willingly provides it. This god is the god that when he told Moses to go to the people of Israel and Moses asked how they would know that Yahweh really sent him, Yahweh did not rebuke Moses or say you of little faith, but said put your hand in you coat and remove it. Moses did and it turned leprous. He told him to do it again and Moses’ hand was cured. He told him to cast down his staff. It became a snake. He told him to pick it up again and it was a staff once more. And what if the people should still not believe? Did Yahweh then grow angry and say he had given them more than enough evidence and if they really did follow him or have faith then they wouldn’t question? No, he told Moses to further turn Nile water to blood. 1 This god is a god who says judge me to see if I am true.2 This god is a god who after raising his son from the dead did not take him away, but let him walk among men again for longer than a month so multitudes could see, touch, and know the evidence of the claim.3 This god is a god who appeals to historical-critical investigation to judge whether He is Who He Is. He says look, I have spoken in advance of things that will be. If such things occur as I said, then you will know that I am God.4 So much so does Yahweh depend on reason and historical-critical investigation that even his word is judged by it. We will know that something spoken or written is from Yahweh because it comes to pass. If it doesn’t come to pass, then Yahweh has not spoken it.5

And so by the witness of Yahweh’s own word as well as the witness of the world as it exists in which I must first use my reason to determine whether the word is really Yahweh’s, reason and historical-critical investigation come before scripture to judge it. And this is where Genesis comes into the equation. Everything in the scriptures-even the very witness of Yeshua himself-depends on Genesis. How Genesis is understood determines all that comes after. If Genesis is a fabrication or a myth, it destroys everything thereafter. It doesn’t matter how historically certain I am about Yeshua-that he truly existed, truly did wondrous deeds, and truly rose from the dead. If Genesis is a lie, Yeshua means nothing. This is what I call a deal breaker. There are several for Christianity. For instance, if we found the bones of Yeshua-which is no doubt a virtually impossible scenario-that would instantly disqualify Christianity. So it is with Genesis.

Unfortunately, Genesis is quite unique. There is really nothing like it in existence, which makes historical-critical investigation extremely difficult. Add to this the supposed antiquity of the text and the difficulties surge to astronomical proportions. How can we be sure that anyone named Abraham actually existed if Genesis is the only text (aside from those inspired by it) that mentions him and there is almost nothing in antiquity to compare it to? If there are alterations and changes to the text-and we know there have been-how can we be sure that the present text adequately presents the truth? There are a great deal more questions that must be asked and each one seems the more improbable to answer.

However, one of the ways a person can tell what a text is, is by looking at its form and function. If I wanted to know whether something was a comic book or a dictionary, there would be specific structural details as well as utilization of information therein that would identify a text as comic book or dictionary. The same can be said of texts that communicate history and those texts that do not.6 A text may be fictional and look in all ways like real history. The rule to follow is that if there is reason and evidence to believe a text speaks truly, then a work can be regarded as history until evidence arises which challenges that conclusion. By looking at the form and function of a few portions of Genesis in comparison with all other near eastern documents of antiquity, I believe I have found significant differences that suggest Genesis is other than myth and fiction. These differences can be divided into four types: genealogical progression, mythic people groups/nations, prominence of status through great acts, and prominence of status through superiority.

Genealogical Progression

In the ancient world, all mythical genealogical lists have a certain motion. And this motion belies its purpose. It doesn’t matter if it is the Old Assyrian King List, The Hammurabi genealogy, the King List of Ugarit, Hesiods’ Catalogue, the Babylonian or Sumerian lists, or Phoenician, Punic, Moabite, Aramaic, Egyptian, and Pre-Islamic Arabic lists--all mythic ancient near eastern genealogies move from later to earlier in time. They do so by using the relational term son of to push the reader back in time to an earlier generation in order to legitimate the present one. Thus, for instance, The Assyrian King List traces its figures back in time to the Apkallu. The Catalogue traces its figures back to gods.

Genesis does not do this. It does not appeal to the past to substantiate the present. Instead of using son of to push us back in time as though it was written after the time or as though people were just making up a history that could validate their current culture, attitudes, or belief, Genesis’ genealogies move forward by using the relation term father of. The movement from earlier to later in the genealogy separates the beliefs the writers and readers of the lists have of themselves. Instead of substantiating a past, it looks to a future. Since progression from earlier to later isn’t the function or form of ancient mythical genealogies, this is evidence and reason to believe Genesis’ genealogies are indeed recollections of real historical figures and their ancestry.

Mythic People Groups/Nations

Part of the progression and status in mythic narratives and genealogies as opposed to narratives and genealogies that are records of history is the inclusion of unquestionably mythic people groups/nations. Thus, for instance, out of every single people group mentioned in Genesis 10 (which is far more and far more complete than any other ancient document), it has not yielded any ethnic group that is clearly identifiable as mythic, whereas Hesiod’s Catalogue (which isn’t concerned with other nations) does. One can see mythic people groups in the Homeric epics. Or how about the great American Jewish tribes of Joseph Smith?

Because time has only authenticated the people groups (as well as cities and people) in Genesis as real, and because myths will involve what we know to be fictional people groups/nations, this is evidence that Genesis is not a myth, but a record of history.

Prominence of Status Through Great Acts In Story

Myths and fictional histories are written in order to promote status to a group or individual. The point is to show figures of the past in good standing in order to bring honor, prestige, authority, etc, to the present figure or group. Gilgamesh, for instance, kills the bull of heaven and accomplishes many other great feats. While there are memorable acts recorded in Genesis, virtually every storyline ends with figures performing acts of condemnation, not status.

  • Genesis 3 - Adam and Eve fall, are cursed, and are banished from the garden
  • Genesis 4 - Cain kills Abel, Lamech commits murder
  • Genesis 5 - only one ancestor follows God
  • Genesis 6 - defiling of nature, evil of men’s hearts
  • Genesis 7 - God obliterates mankind by deluge
  • Genesis 8 - the evil in men’s hearts will continue
  • Genesis 9 - Noah’s story ends with the curse of his offspring
  • Genesis 10 - seems to include the ancestry of the entire world, no person, group, or nation receives special status or favorable distinction
  • Genesis 11 - the people are scattered and confusion brought among them at Babel for pride, arrogance, and godlessness
  • Genesis 12 - Abraham lies about his wife, brings disgrace on a great ruler and his wife, and causes disease and harm to fall on the ruler and his people, Abraham and his retinue are expelled

The horrific stories continue on and on. Here are only a few more: Abraham is almost killed by God for disobedience. Sara and Abraham don’t believe God. Men try to gang rape God’s messengers. God sends fire and brimstone to annihilate an entire region of the earth because of its wickedness. Lots daughters get him drunk and copulate with him out of the mistaken idea that the earth was destroyed.

The point is that fictional histories and myths are usually concerned with giving prominence to a group, nation, or individual because great deeds, courage, or other virtues. Stories that are created about the past to give life and meaning to the present and to help define and give reason for a current belief or culture never include such gratuitous displays of error, shame, stupidity, evil, and defilement. Such would serve to undermine what was said. Instead, we are presented with a continuing story of men and women with all the flaws and disgraces of real people. All this serves as evidence that what we are being presented with is more honest and real than myths and fictional histories. It also suggests that its purpose is other than mythic and fictional since such works are not written that way.

Prominence of Status Through Superiority

Myths and fictional histories focus around kings, lords, rulers, warriors, demigods, priest, officials, etc--important, influential people of renown, authority, and power. Words are used that elevate these people from common humanity. Even when they die, they are looked up to in such ways, such as in the Hammurabi genealogy and The King List of Ugarit, which reverences the dead as though they are gods with kispu rituals. No ancient near eastern genealogy, unlike Genesis, tells us the length of years and age when the next figure was born. No ancient near eastern genealogy, unlike Genesis, refers to its important figures in human terms such as being begotten, that their figures had other sons and daughters, or is concerned with letting us know at every turn that they died and everyone’s age at points of birth and death.

The Catalogue, for instance, is concerned almost exclusively with Greek-speaking peoples and only mentions another nation in a minor way. It does this to elevate the Greek-speaking peoples. The Hammurabi genealogy is concerned with the Amorites and so makes that group superior. Genesis deals with all the nations in almost a completely equal way. The line from Shem to Abram is actually incomplete and broken. It is disregarded completely in the Table of Nations. Ishmael, whose people have continually been at odds with Israel, is blessed and protected and said to be made into a great nation7 whereas the nation of blessing itself will be enslaved and captive in a foreign land for hundreds of years!8

Genesis hardly gives us a reason beyond the desire of its one and only God for the nation of Israel to be anything special. It clearly shows us in contrast with myths a concern for ordinary men, speaks of them without gloss and status, actually defames them, and doesn’t show favoritism to a particular group. Instead of trying to establish authority and right by tracing a ruler’s line or the greatness of a person, Genesis shows us that Yahweh rules and that men have continually lost their authority and right through their wickedness. This is not a history anyone would create for themselves unless they were looking to establish their own incompetence. And even then, they would hardly need to invent a history to do so or to convince others of it.

In conclusion, what these four categories show us in Genesis is a work of literature different from myth and fiction-especially from the myths and fictions of the ancient near eastern world that it would more likely compare. And since there are reasons for the way myths and fictions are written, it is rational to conclude that the reason for Genesis’ composition lies outside of mythic and fictional portrayals. Despite supernatural occurrences and other strange tales, the form and function of the narrative itself as demonstrated in these four points is evidence that something closer to a historical record of real events and real people is in view.

1Moses at the burning bush - Exodus 4:1-8

2Elijah and the priests of Baal - 1 Kings 18:20-39

3Acts 1:3 - with many convincing proofs

4Isaiah 41:21-29; 42:9

5Deuteronomy 18:21-22

6Although the example is anachronistic when applied to the ancient world, the underlying concept is reliable. Even in the ancient world, there were certain ways of writing and speaking that would be differentiated from others.

7Genesis 21:13-20

8Genesis 15:13